Read all latest corporate law news, articles, notifications & circular on Taxguru.in. News on laws related to DIPP Labour Minimum Wages Gratuity PF Arbitration Negotiable instrument Essential Commodities SRFAESI Competition Act Corporate Law
Corporate Law : Filing the yearly return ensures transparency and keeps the authorities up to date on the LLP’s economic and operational fame. I...
Corporate Law : Amalgamation is the process where two or more companies combine to form a single entity, often with the goal of achieving greater ...
Corporate Law : Learn how Intellectual Property Rights impact commercial contracts, including ownership, licensing, dispute resolution, and key co...
Corporate Law : Understanding territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the NI Act. Key rulings and amendments explain where cheque bounce cas...
Corporate Law : Learn who must file LLP annual returns in India and how to do it. Understand filing requirements, deadlines for Forms 11 and 8, an...
Corporate Law : Update on CCI's order regarding WhatsApp and Meta's data sharing. NCLAT's interim stay and government measures to prevent data mis...
Corporate Law : Overview of IBC 2016's impact, amendments, and government's stance on further changes, including flat registration in insolvency c...
Corporate Law : Rupee depreciation affects imports and exports. RBI intervenes to manage volatility, using forex reserves to stabilize the currenc...
Corporate Law : Clarification on share certificate claims under Rs. 5 lakh, legal heir acceptance, and applicant authenticity measures by the Inve...
Corporate Law : Government clarifies the status of Barshi Textile Mills under IBC 2016, addressing worker payments, company status, and cooperativ...
Corporate Law : Karnataka HC upholds Flipkart's stance on TDS under Section 195, ruling seconded employees' salaries as reimbursements, not taxabl...
Corporate Law : Charging tolls on bad roads was unfair and ordered an 80% reduction in toll fees at 2 key toll plazas as tolls were meant to provi...
Corporate Law : Calcutta High Court held that gratuity doesn’t form part of liquidation estate. Hence, entire dues of workers would not come und...
Corporate Law : NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of resolution plan of appellant justified as CoC deliberated and discussed the Resolution Plan of ...
Corporate Law : High Court failed to examine whether the complaint, even if taken at face value, established the personal liability of the directo...
Corporate Law : FSSAI directs FBOs to update Form IX nominee details and enables auto-approval for Non-Form C modifications in FoSCoS from Februar...
Corporate Law : The Immigration and Foreigners Bill 2025, introduced in Lok Sabha, consolidates laws on passports, visas, and foreigner registrati...
Corporate Law : IRDAI permits insurers to use Bond Forwards for hedging, subject to compliance with RBI directions, prudential norms, and operatio...
Corporate Law : IRDAI allows insurers to undertake Bond Forwards for hedging under specific conditions, aligning with RBI’s 2025 guidelines on...
Corporate Law : IBBI rejects RTI appeal seeking detailed breakup of Dalmia Cement claims in Jaiprakash insolvency case, citing unavailability of d...
K.E.Burgmann A/S Versus H.N.Shah & Ors (Delhi HC) – This is a suit for grant of permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, delivery up of the infringing material and damages. Plaintiff No. 1 is a company registered in Denmark whereas plaintiff No. 2 is a subsidiary of plaintiff No.1 and is registered in India. Plaintiff No. 1 company was founded by Mr. Keld Ellentoft for developing, designing and manufacturing, fabric, elastomer and fluropolymer expansion joints/compensators, which are installed to accommodate thermal expansion/contraction of the ducting system due to rise and fall in temperature and claims to be a well known manufacturer of these products carrying business in several countries including U.K., Scandinavian countries,
Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs Vinod Kumar (Supreme Court of India)- Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the land in dispute belongs to the State. It is averred by the respondents that they have occupied the land in dispute in the year 1947, measuring 2-1/2 kanals in Khasra No. 16693/6729 in the 55.0 Acres Development Scheme as they were displaced persons from Pakistan.
MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr (Supreme Court of India)- Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: A. The Public Works Department of the State of Rajasthan (hereinafter called “PWD”) decided in September 1997 to construct the Bharatpur bye-pass for the road from Bharatpur to Mathura, which passed through a busy market of the city of Bharatpur. For the aforesaid work, tenders were invited with a stipulation that the work would be executed on the basis of Build Operate and Transfer (BOT). The total extent of the road had been 10.850 k.ms. out of which 9.6 k.ms. was new construction and 1.25 k.ms. was improvement, i.e. widening and strengthening of the existing portion of Bharatpur-Deeg Road. B.
Shri Rabindra kumar B. Adhikari Vs Mr. Thothar (CIC) The PIO replied that the information sought by the applicant pertains to the third party and no public interest will be served in the disclosure. In accordance with Section 11 of the Act, a reference was made to the third party i.e., Sunitha Choudhury to make submission in writing or orally whether the information may be disclosed or not. The third party vide letter dated 25/10/2010 has strongly opposed to give any information to the applicant. Therefore, in accordance of sub section (3) of Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, the information is denied.
Retirement fund manager EPFO will seek the legal opinion on implementation of the order of the MP High Court throughout the country under which employers and employees will be required to increase their contributions to the provident fund. ‘We will seek legal opinion and also the opinion of Ministry of Law and Justice Ministry, through Labour Ministry, on the MP High Court order throughout the country,’ Central Provident Fund Commissioner Samirendra Chatterjee said.
Rationale of Equity Caps -The FDI equity caps in a sector essentially reflect the levels of control that a foreign direct Investor is permitted to exercise in a company operating within that sector. The FDI policy incorporates equity caps at broadly four levels- 26%, 49%, 51% and 74%[2]. These caps reflect the ownership/ control levels in a company, under the Companies Act, 1956. Thus, for example, any equity holding greater than 25% gives a right to block a ‘special resolution’. 49% equity represents a level just short of ownership. 51% signifies ownership and a right to pass all ordinary resolutions. 74% equity cap on FDI means that the Indian equity holders, acting in unison, can block a special resolution.
The Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development has reconstituted the Copyright Board, as per section 11 of the Copyright Act, 1957 by appointing Justice Ramesh Chandra Chopra (retired) as the Chairman of the Copyright Board for a period of five years or till further orders, whichever is earlier, with effect from the 15th July, 2011.
The Supreme Court has recalled its order given on 15 November last year in which it had directed MoD to set up a Commission to look into the grievances of serving and former soldiers of the Armed Forces. In the same order, the Apex Court had made a mention of Smt Pushpa Vanti’s case, a widow whose husband was an Army Major. The petitioner Smt Pushpa Vanti had claimed that she was getting only a meager amount of Rs. 80/- per month as pension since the death of her husband in 1967 and her pension had not been revised since then.
The Government of India has entered into an Agreement on Social Security with the French Republic. Following the principles of reciprocity this agreement is intended to benefit the employees and employers of both India as well as France. The Agreement has come into force w.e.f. 1s` July, 2011.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint (i) Shri Justice Kamalkishor Kapoorchandji Tated, (ii) Shri Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, and (iii) Shri Justice Shahrukh Jimi Kathawalla, Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court, to be Judges of the Bombay High Court, in that order of seniority, with effect from the dates they assume charge of their offices.
